CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ames v. State

This dissenting opinion argues against a restrictive interpretation of the time limitation for filing claims under the Texas Crime Victims Compensation Act (Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 8309-1). Commissioner Burdock contends that the 180-day filing deadline should be subject to tolling provisions, particularly when a victim is incapacitated, similar to the Texas Workers’ Compensation Act. The dissent emphasizes that a strict application, as advocated by the State of Texas, could unjustly deny benefits to seriously injured crime victims who are unable to file due to incapacity, thus undermining the Act's purpose of compensating victims.

Crime Victims Compensation ActStatutory InterpretationTolling of LimitationsIncapacitated VictimsWorkers' Compensation ActTexas LawIndustrial Accident BoardLegislative IntentDissenting OpinionVictim Rights
References
5
Case No. 11-09-00315-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2011

Kelvin E. Louis v. Office of Texas Attorney General Crime Victims' Services Division

Kelvin E. Louis appealed the trial court's decision, which granted the attorney general's plea to the jurisdiction and dismissed his claim for crime victim compensation as untimely. Louis argued that the 40-day period for filing a lawsuit for judicial review should start from the date of his amended notice of dissatisfaction, not his initial notice. The Eleventh Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the statutory 40-day period commences upon the filing of the initial notice of dissatisfaction. Consequently, Louis's lawsuit was deemed untimely, and the trial court correctly dismissed the case.

Judicial ReviewTimelinessCrime Victim CompensationPlea to JurisdictionStatutory ConstructionAppellate ProcedureNotice of DissatisfactionSubject-Matter JurisdictionFiling DeadlineTexas Court of Appeals
References
15
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03790
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Matter of Hamling

Jerry Ray Hamling, an attorney admitted in New York in 2015, pleaded guilty in June 2020 to falsifying business records in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor. This conviction stemmed from his actions directing his payroll processing company, Affinity Human Resources, LLC, to treat one of a construction client's companies as separate, leading to knowing omissions in payroll records. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department moved to impose discipline, citing the conviction as a "serious crime." The Court concurred, finding the conviction, which included intent to defraud, qualified as a serious crime under Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d). Weighing mitigating factors like a clean disciplinary record against aggravating factors such as illegal conduct despite substantial legal experience, the Court ordered a one-year suspension from the practice of law to safeguard the public and uphold professional integrity.

Attorney MisconductFalsifying Business RecordsSerious CrimeProfessional DisciplineSuspension of AttorneyPayroll FraudIntent to DefraudAppellate DivisionJudiciary Law 90Disciplinary Proceedings
References
5
Case No. 13 NY3d 747
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McKinnon

The case concerns the appeal of a defendant's conviction for first-degree assault, among other crimes, in New York. The core legal issue revolves around whether bite marks inflicted by the defendant on the victim's inner forearm constituted "serious disfigurement" under Penal Law § 120.10 (2). The court, while acknowledging a definition for "disfigurement," found the evidence—consisting of two moderate-sized scars—insufficient to establish serious disfigurement. The court emphasized that the mere existence of scars in that location, without unusually disturbing characteristics, would not make the victim's appearance distressing or objectionable to a reasonable person. Consequently, the first-degree assault conviction and a related second-degree assault count were reversed and dismissed, with the case remitted for further proceedings on a remaining second-degree assault charge.

Criminal LawAssaultFirst Degree AssaultSerious DisfigurementPenal LawSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew York Court of AppealsBite MarksPhysical Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Louis v. Office of Texas Attorney General Crime Victims' Services Division

Kelvin E. Louis, a crime victim, sought judicial review after the attorney general denied his compensation claim. The trial court dismissed Louis's lawsuit, ruling it was untimely filed, having been brought more than 40 days after his initial notice of dissatisfaction. Louis appealed, arguing the time limit should commence from his amended notice of dissatisfaction. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the statutory 40-day period for filing suit begins to run from the date the initial notice of dissatisfaction is filed, thus making Louis's lawsuit untimely.

Judicial ReviewTimelinessPlea to JurisdictionCrime Victim CompensationStatutory ConstructionNotice of DissatisfactionTexas Administrative CodeAppellate ProcedureSubject-Matter Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. Leak

The petitioner, who was shot in 1991, applied to the Crime Victims Board for compensation, including lost earnings and vocational rehabilitation. The Board initially awarded compensation for property loss and medical expenses, and later counsel fees. Petitioner appealed the denial of lost earnings and vocational rehabilitation. The Board's denial was based on insufficient evidence of prior employment and occupational limitations. The court affirmed the Board's denial, finding the proof for lost earnings highly speculative and the need for vocational rehabilitation not established. However, the court modified the counsel fee award from $65 to $80, correcting an error regarding the petitioner's retainer payment.

Crime Victims BoardLost EarningsVocational RehabilitationCounsel FeesCPLR Article 78Executive LawSubstantial EvidenceBurden of ProofCompensation DenialAlbany County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2001

Claim of Derr v. VIP Structures

The claimant, who had a work-related permanent total disability, was convicted of assault in March 1999 and subsequently incarcerated. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was not entitled to benefits during his incarceration after the conviction of a crime. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for continued benefits due to his total disability and resulting lack of earning capacity, regardless of his incarceration status. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the suspension of workers’ compensation benefits during incarceration after a criminal conviction is based on public policy, and this principle applies to both partial and total disabilities. The court concluded that suspending benefits in such circumstances does not conflict with the Workers’ Compensation Law's goals.

IncarcerationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTotal DisabilityPublic PolicyAssault ConvictionBenefit SuspensionCriminal ConductAppellate ReviewDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weaver v. Town of Penfield

Gerald F. Weaver, a paramedic supervisor, and other plaintiffs, sued Penfield Volunteer Emergency Ambulance Service, Inc. and the Town of Penfield for injuries sustained in an ambulance collision. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment on liability and serious injury to Weaver's left shoulder, while defendant cross-moved to dismiss, arguing no serious injury occurred. The Supreme Court initially found triable issues on serious injury. However, the appellate court determined the lower court erred in considering an unalleged injury category and ultimately concluded that defendant had established a lack of serious injury. The appellate court found plaintiffs failed to provide objective medical evidence to support a serious injury claim, particularly regarding the left shoulder, and noted no cervical spine injury was alleged. Consequently, the appellate court granted defendant's cross-motion and dismissed the complaint against the defendants.

Personal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentSerious Injury ThresholdInsurance LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMedical EvidenceObjective FindingsShoulder InjuryRange of Motion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1987

People v. Gaines

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment convicting the defendant of third-degree robbery. The defendant had entered a grocery store, threatened the cashier with what appeared to be a hand grenade, and claimed to have committed a homicide, stealing $15 before fleeing. He was later apprehended, and the inoperable grenade was recovered. The court ruled that the homicide threat merely enhanced the seriousness of the robbery threat, not constituting evidence of an uncharged crime. Additionally, the defendant's claim regarding courtroom closure during summation was not preserved for appellate review.

RobberyThird Degree RobberySecond Felony OffenderHand Grenade ThreatUncharged Crime EvidenceAppellate ReviewCourtroom ClosureCriminal Procedure LawAffirmance
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Frazer

Respondent Leroy Frazer, Jr., an attorney admitted in 1982, pleaded guilty in the Criminal Court of the City of New York to two misdemeanor counts of failing to timely file New York State personal income tax returns for 1984 and 1985. The Appellate Division found this to be a 'serious crime' and referred the matter for a sanction hearing. The Hearing Panel unanimously recommended public censure, a recommendation confirmed by the court. The panel determined that Frazer's failure was an aberrational act caused by a psychological block, not venality, and noted his repentance, contrition, and good character, evidenced by his community service. The court concluded that a public censure was the appropriate sanction.

Attorney MisconductDisciplinary ActionTax Law ViolationMisdemeanor ConvictionPublic CensureSerious CrimePsychological BlockGood CharacterRepentanceJudiciary Law
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 674 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational